45MB Internet on 55MB Bonded Profile?

SKJ: "--Anyone have details about a new 45mb internet using a 55mb bonded profile?"

I was told today by a reliable source that there are trials currently in the field in a very limited area of a bonded profile providing 45MB service.

I was told it requires a new RG similiar the 3810HGV in that it is a desktop RG, but it supports bonded lines like an iNID.

If this does roll out to public availabilty that it would still be 6 months down the road if it happens at all, but my guess is this will be a reality by the end of this year.

It was also mentioned that AT&T has set an internal goal to be able to launch a 100MB service in 2 years to compete with Cable, this is possible with improvements with bonded pairs and vectoring, but like any goal this could get delayed or just never happen with the current infrastructure, but it does appear to be something they are thinking about and working on in the labs.--»www.w4lny.com

Never heard of it and find it quite funny that you mention "AT&T has set an internal goal to be able to launch 100MB service in 2 years to compete with cable".

If AT&T is ever able to deliver 100MB on their crap network it would be extremely limited and cable would probably already be at the 500MB or even GB level on a grand scale. AT&T will never be able to fully compete until they roll out FTTH, which is something the cheap bastards won't do willingly.

Never heard of it and find it quite funny that you mention "AT&T has set an internal goal to be able to launch 100MB service in 2 years to compete with cable".

If AT&T is ever able to deliver 100MB on their crap network it would be extremely limited and cable would probably already be at the 500MB or even GB level on a grand scale. AT&T will never be able to fully compete until they roll out FTTH, which is something the cheap bastards won't do willingly.

How long is AT&T going to try and milk the copper cow? This can't go on forever. Better yet, spend some of those enormous profits and build a last mile fiber network that will take them through the next 30 years.

There have been a few topics surrounding this. Yes, it has been confirmed that AT&T will be launching a 45/5 Internet connection on a 55 Mbit/s profile.

As of now, we don't know any pricing, or know any time frame, other then it is being tested this year. Merlin, and AT&T employee, is releasing bits and pieces of info, but has been generally vague about pricing or launch dates as well.

All we know is this:

"It is coming soon(*)"

(*) The definition of "soon" is based solely on AT&T's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.--"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

If AT&T is ever able to deliver 100MB on their crap network it would be extremely limited

I believe this as well. To get 100 Mbps over copper VDSL technology, you probably have to live within less than 500ft of a VRAD, which means it is probably only available to roughly (guestimated) 20% of customers.

It will be the same with this new 45/5 internet. It's really nice that they offer it, but the majority of houses surrounding a VRAD probably will not qualify for it due to distance limitations. There are plenty of customers that don't even qualify for the current 24 and 18 Mbps plans because they live too far from a VRAD.

There is a clear, proven method however to overcome these distance limitations so that the same speeds can be offered to all customers. Unfortunately it is named "fiberoptic cables" and AT&T will have none of that! --"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

I believe this as well. To get 100 Mbps over copper VDSL technology, you probably have to live within less than 500ft of a VRAD, which means it is probably only available to roughly (guestimated) 20% of customers.

According to this, Alcatel is pushing 100mbps over 3,000 foot loops. We'll see how it works real-world though.

Even if it's only available to 20% of customers, it's still something they can advertise as having, and in turn, our cable company has to compete with. TWC is currently charging $99/month for 50/5 service with no promotional discounts "because they can". I suspect either TWC's price will go down, or the speeds will go up by the time AT&T has an answer to that package.--AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011Rethink Billable.

Strange.... the TWC 50/5 (which may go to 50/25 soon) is $79,95 here when I input my address and zipcode. But granted, I don't have *any* TWC services, nor has this address had any for many years. (Previous owner had DSL then U-Verse and DirecTV)

I'm just a little above 2400 feet from my VRAD and get these sync speeds on a bonded profile. I'm sure with a little more "wire twisting" I could squeeze out a little more. All in all if they do start bonding people at closer distances should see a lot faster sync speeds than 100mbps.

I'm just a little above 2400 feet from my VRAD and get these sync speeds on a bonded profile. I'm sure with a little more "wire twisting" I could squeeze out a little more. All in all if they do start bonding people at closer distances should see a lot faster sync speeds than 100mbps.

It is strange though you have a 25/2 profile, and not a 32/5 one if your "max rate" is so high.

Also, I am pretty sure the max rate doesn't say anything about stability.... I have heard some people here say that even though the number may be that high, the error correction needed on the distance you are at might not make it possible to get even close to that.--"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

There is one person on an i3812V/i38HG router who has a 55/6 profile. The max rates on each line are in the 45-48 Mbps range, the profile on each line is approximately 27.5/3. He is approximately 1900' from the VRAD.

His iNID is running the standard 6.3.7.37 firmware.

These results were reported to the UV Realtime database as recently as May 4th, 2012.

I'm just a little above 2400 feet from my VRAD and get these sync speeds on a bonded profile. I'm sure with a little more "wire twisting" I could squeeze out a little more. All in all if they do start bonding people at closer distances should see a lot faster sync speeds than 100mbps.

It is strange though you have a 25/2 profile, and not a 32/5 one if your "max rate" is so high.

Also, I am pretty sure the max rate doesn't say anything about stability.... I have heard some people here say that even though the number may be that high, the error correction needed on the distance you are at might not make it possible to get even close to that.

There is no guarantee that a 'high' max rate will result in a stable service and also there is no guarantee that some gateway at 2Kft will perform the same as another gateway at 2Kft. There are so many variables involved that each case is different and this is why the service is so inconsistent and unpredictable. In my neighborhood some of us had good stats while others had terrible stats all under the constraints of a neighborhood block roughly 10-15 homes and some of the guys closer to the VRAD had worse numbers than guys further away from the VRAD.

I find it amusing when people say that their correctable errors (FEC) are only 20K a day. To me this is a clear indication of instability... push the system a little bit harder with interference, weather conditions, electrical noise or crosstalk and... 'Houston we have a problem'. Thank you Reed-Solomon!

This is what AT&T is doing with these 'new' profiles, pushing VDSL2 harder and without extensive testing and evaluation deploying it would be dumb. This is why it's taking years before at&t offers this to the public but a year in ISP terms is an eternity.

I think one of the new revelations here was the fact my source stated that there is a whole new piece of hardware a new gateway that is being tested a desktop RG that supports bonding, this is how they will support the new speeds, cheaper and easier than installing an iNID on the back of everyone's home.

And apparently from SomeJoe's post they are also testing these speeds with the iNID's as well.--»www.w4lny.com

It is strange though you have a 25/2 profile, and not a 32/5 one if your "max rate" is so high.

I noticed a lot of people who've posted here with stability problems on bonded profiles show fairly high (50+)mbps bonded max downstream rates. Max rate doesn't give us the whole story, even more so on bonded profiles. AT&T may need to do more research to figure out how far out one can reliably do a bonded 32/5 profile.

We also can't see the max upstream. A lot of people that had 32/5 had trouble getting the full 5 up, even though they had lots of headroom in the downstream direction.--AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011Rethink Billable.

I'm just a little above 2400 feet from my VRAD and get these sync speeds on a bonded profile. I'm sure with a little more "wire twisting" I could squeeze out a little more. All in all if they do start bonding people at closer distances should see a lot faster sync speeds than 100mbps.

It is strange though you have a 25/2 profile, and not a 32/5 one if your "max rate" is so high.

Also, I am pretty sure the max rate doesn't say anything about stability.... I have heard some people here say that even though the number may be that high, the error correction needed on the distance you are at might not make it possible to get even close to that.

The problem at that distance is the upload. While the download max rate may be sufficient with pair bonding at that distance, the upload is still too limited to handle even the 32/5 much less a higher profile

The problem at that distance is the upload. While the download max rate may be sufficient with pair bonding at that distance, the upload is still too limited to handle even the 32/5 much less a higher profile

AT&T believes 5 Mbps upload is the way of the future. If, of course, it can deliver that.--"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

It was also mentioned that AT&T has set an internal goal to be able to launch a 100MB service in 2 years to compete with Cable, this is possible with improvements with bonded pairs and vectoring, but like any goal this could get delayed or just never happen with the current infrastructure, but it does appear to be something they are thinking about and working on in the labs.

Want to know how AT&T can compete with cable? DROP THE FUCKING BANDWIDTH CAPS.

Even if AT&T offered 10 Mbps that would still be an improvement over Comcrap with their 100 Mbps speed tier that has a 250 GB bandwidth cap. I'd take uncapped AT&T over capped cable any day, but apparently the numbskulls over at AT&T are too thick to get that.

Agreed! My only other option here is Charter but the thing that's kept me with U-verse is the lack of caps. 24/3 uncapped beats gigabit with caps IMO... At least I can actually use my connectioin! If AT&T starts enforcing the caps I'll probably be getting Charter as even though they're both capped Charter has faster speeds and bigger than 250GB caps...

Also, I am pretty sure the max rate doesn't say anything about stability.... I have heard some people here say that even though the number may be that high, the error correction needed on the distance you are at might not make it possible to get even close to that.

Too low of a max rate for the chosen profile will guarantee that the line will be unstable. So the max rate definitely says something about the line stability. Just not everything.

Error correction overhead (in terms of the raw bandwidth) is constant for AT&T's VDSL scheme, regardless of distance. Obviously on noisy lines, the error correction is more active, but no additional bandwidth is used.

It was also mentioned that AT&T has set an internal goal to be able to launch a 100MB service in 2 years to compete with Cable, this is possible with improvements with bonded pairs and vectoring, but like any goal this could get delayed or just never happen with the current infrastructure, but it does appear to be something they are thinking about and working on in the labs.

Want to know how AT&T can compete with cable? DROP THE FUCKING BANDWIDTH CAPS.

Even if AT&T offered 10 Mbps that would still be an improvement over Comcrap with their 100 Mbps speed tier that has a 250 GB bandwidth cap. I'd take uncapped AT&T over capped cable any day, but apparently the numbskulls over at AT&T are too thick to get that.

They are not as dumb as you think they are, AT&T's cap meters are 'broken' for a reason. AT&T a company with the largest and fastest network in the universe and with super fast internet plans for the next two decades can't get a dumb usage meter working?

There is a reason for that and it has to do with de-sensitize consumers and 'educate' them to the idea of a global metered internet. Comcast made an interesting move by 'revising' their cap policy... basically they are not enforcing them like they did before »venturebeat.com/2012/05/17/comca ··· ta-caps/

AT&T's broken usage cap meter? I don't think so, they just want you to get used to the idea of having them around and when the time is right... we have good news for our uverse users, your AT&T usage meter is now fixed you can track your usage by clicking the link at the end of this email.

They might keep it at $95, $4 cheaper than Time Warner's 50 Mbps tier, since it will be 5 Mbps slower... then they'll sneak in that $4 modem rental to bring it up to $99 so it costs the same as the competition while delivering less. That's the AT&T way.

AT&T a company with the largest and fastest network in the universe and with super fast internet plans

dude .... Ill let you get by with a lot of the bullshit you say ..but LULZ. Personal feelings and wanting things to be true doesn't mean they are ..and in this case they absolutely are not. Whether you are talking about long-haul fiber, business service, or in this case home service ... i mean wow.

When you say super-fast internet plans ... compared to what ... ATT uverse vdsl v. ATT ADSL? How about the largest and fastest network on the planet? Really? HEH. I dunno man ..i think with the "largest and fastest" people like Google, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Yahoo, ect ..would have their equipment housed in DC's using ATT pipes ...oh yeah they don't.

So come back with some real data that shows ATT has the largest fastest network on the planet with super-fast internet speeds... otherwise...its BS. Remember your opinions based on brainwashing sheeple commercials don't count.

That's interesting. So is it a 4-conductor cable plugging into one jack on the back of the device? Or two phone cables? That would likely require minor re-wiring in some buildings that aren't set up for dual phone lines...

Competing with cable... what a joke. Once cable gets their stuff figured out with upload, it will simply blow U-Verse out of the water.